DPReview Gear of the Year Part 2: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1

A lot of equipment passes through our Seattle and London offices, everything from high-end cameras to inexpensive accessories. A lot of it gets reviewed, but we can't cover everything. In this series of short articles, DPReview staff will be highlighting their personal standout products of the year. In part 2, Allison Johnson comments on her personal favorite - the Panasonic Lumix GM1.

Allison - delightful. Your reaction to the thing in hand is exactly what I hoped it would be. I will have the GM1 in a week but without the silly grip. I will add a couple of stick-on rubber furniture feet to the front of it to anchor my fingers. :)

"A good camera is not hard to find... It's the way you intend to use a camera that makes a difference in how well suited it is for you."

Amen Allison. Almost all of the things presented by commenters as 'good' or 'bad' (eg viewfinder) are simply personal preference. All useful opinions, but only relevant to users with the same preferences.

I don't get it. If you really really must have small, why do you want ILC? Is the lens selection you have to chose from just SO awesome? Is somebody really going to go out and put on the 90% of 4/3rds lenses that outweigh this little thing?

I don't understand the point of an ILC for a tiny camera. If size is the top priority, an internal power zoom just wins. Why would you get a Nikon 1 when there's the RX100? Why would you get the Q7 when there's an S120?

Do people really view ILC as a feature even without carrying multiple lenses? If you buy an ILC camera and keep one lens on it you either have something big enough where ILC doesn't add size/weight (dslr) or something silly.

I get 4/3rds. You want to carry around glass without breaking your back. Cutting the total kit weight makes sense while keeping the flexibility of ILC. But this isn't like that. No sane person would mount a portrait length lens on this thing. Why does it even have an ILC to begin with?

I don't get what you don't get. The GM1 means I can really really have small and still change lenses. The lenses I would use are the small primes, and more are on the way. There is no downside to interchangeable lenses here.

Easy. For someone with m4/3 lenses, it makes a perfect second body. That doubles as a pocket camera, a backup camera for travelling, an unobtrusive street shooter and something to save you changing lenses in a hurry.

While another (woman's) perspective is a nice touch at DPR I'm sure, after reading your RX1002 review, and now the GM1, it has become clear where your priorities actually are.

Casually pulling the P&S-esqe RX1002 out of your purse over coffee with the girls no doubt goes by almost unnoticed; however the chorus of oohs and aahs that follow the inadvertent unveiling of the GM1 are a different story, right?

when I was a kid looking into the viewfinder of a TLR camera (you can think it as a dim 3" LCD), the river bank collapsed and I was quick to escape unhurt.

usually people have less awareness of the environemt, things happening around them when peeping into small finder. though we also lose chance, fail to recognize and record precious moments, we have but one life to lose.

why we need an assistant beside each camera man (to guide the guy as if he was blind), or an observer beside a sniper.

I don't like other people use iPad around me, but iPad is probably the most natural way to take photograph, and safer.

Today, the DMC-GM1 is in my hands. It is almost too small. An element begins to bother me. It is impossible to place a quick release plate for photo or video tripod with another lens than the Panasonic 12-32 or 14. With the Olympus 17 mm, it is limit. Direction La Grand Bibliothèque de Paris behind my home.I am surprised by the reactivity of the DMC-GM1. It is immediate. Faster than the DMC-GH3. The touch-sensitive screen is reactive too. Even too much. Take care where you put fingers. Too low on the screen, you modify the white balance without being careful. The screen glorifies the images but without betraying them really. What you see is what you will get …Return at home. The editing is also simple as for the DMC-GH3. The audio dubbing is essential. The audio recording is mediocre. To use only indoor.Now it just needs a nice case to carry the DMC-GM1. Enjoy your Panasonic.

You want a quick release system for your GM1 (suitable also for bigger cameras)? The german firm Novoflex produces MiniConnect, which works with a relatively small disc at the camera's bottom. You can check it out by means of a 1Euro coin, the diameter of which comes very close to that of the MiniConnect disc.But don't forget: Deciding on the GM1's optional grip is deciding against a quick release system. And vice versa.

Okay, I can see spending the money if one must have an interchangeable lens camera with 4:3 sensor. But as is, with a 3.5 lens,3:1 ratio zoom lens and no hot shoe, I'd still buy a LX7 with the LVF2 electronic viewfinder as an accessory. I've had the camera for about five months, and recently got the LVF2 to try out. With a 1.4 lens and 4:1 zoom ratio, it is allowing me to take some amazing photos. I'm not seeing, from the above samples, an appreciable difference with the GM1 and it's about 50% more than my camera combo. I just posted a gallery of photos in the Gallery section, most have been taken without the LVF2, but I'm finding I can be more precise with my composition with it.

That the ultra small camera is liberating in a sense of creativity of its own kind would seem like carrying wood into the wood but trying sony nex6 these days makes that experience fresher. Impressed by the optical quality of the Touit 32/1.8 T* by the way. so much so that I can give up the range and stabilization for it and its speed. it also worked best with my d90 used as a 'compact' before.

I don't know about you, but I'm finding that with the LVF2 on my LX7, I can much more precisely compose the photos. Perhaps my eyesight is what makes viewing a 3" LCD challenging to compose with compared to the large image in the LVF2, but I'm liking that extra size for detailed composition.

{if you are an expert - maybe something historically akin to someone wearing a tophat and monicle - you may wish to skip over my uncomfortably lengthy commentary involving things you already know}

But here is a little information for those less familiar with m4/3 or mirrorless cameras in general:

Panasonic and Olympus, having started the mirrorless category together with the m4/3 format, went two different directions initially - Panasonic opting for a compact SLR-esque body (G1) to hit the market first in 2008. While Panasonic explored this approach and soon after the compact rangefinder-style (I've never liked that description btw), Olympus invested everything initially in its compact PEN series. It was Olympus that received much of the attention for the decidedly classic looking small PEN's. So from the start the cachet of mirrorless has largely been size and aesthetics as balanced with performance. And though it was understood by the technical community that, in addition to lens interchangeability, these cameras had relatively large 4/3 sensors (multiple times larger than most point and shoots) and advanced live view capabilities, it was hard to communicate the whole package successfully to the average consumer. But a reasonable amount of success by both makers (particularly outside the US) did prove a tentative viability of tgese systems and lead to the entry of the small body APS-C sensor cameras, most notably Sony's NEX series. [Canon and Nikon sat on their thumbs hoping this would never grow beyond a niche market, then, noting the increasing interest released arguably weak mirrorless lines.]

For a while now the APS-C sensor mirrorless' have stolen the show a bit, understandably so with the impressively small body DSLR image quality cameras like the NEX's, and the super chic and handsome Fujifilm X series. Now, with the releases of full frame mirrorless cameras such as the Sony A7/A7R and the Canon Df as well as the high performing and stylish m4/3 Olympus OM-D E-M1 (who thought up that name?) and well-featured good image quality small and very small Panasonic Lumix GX7 and GM1, I think we are seeing something approximating maturation of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (CSC's, MILC's, EVIL's, DSLM's...whatever we call them). And I think the story is that from the standpoint of very high-end performance in modest size and weight cameras to reasonably impressive performance in super small packages, such as the GM1, they are primed to fulfill a wide range of needs. And this has always been the potential in the technology.

There is much hyperbole over mirrorless ultimately replacing DSLR's, but there are more than a few reasons that both will coexist for some time at least, perhaps always. [I see a lot of egos making claims they know they cannot guarantee.]

Although it can be confusing much of the time, this is a great time to be a photographer, casual or more serious. And the Panasonic Lumix GM1 - don't ask me how exactly - is emblematic of that.

Sorry, as a DSLR it should not be listed as I did. I meant to come back and explain it in reference to pressures to create different types of DSLR bodies (retro, whatever) perhaps because of mirrorless experimentations with form. I screwed up.

I went outdoors and took some pictures. At 12mm the lens looked OK. At 32mm it looked very sharp. Lest not forget you can put a 14mm 2.5 or a 20mm 1.7 or an Oly 45mm 1.8 on the GM1 and stay with primes.

While the GM1 is the smallest M4/3 made today, what I really find intriguing is the lens. I realize it is relatively slow, but that lens is so small that it will transform most M4/3 cameras into a very desirable walkaround shooter.

If the lens was sold separately for $250 or so... Panasonic couldn't make them fast enough to meet market demand.

It seems to me that the Canon EOS M with its 22 f/2.0 lens would be better, it's roughly the same size with a better sensor, better screen, better built, providing better image quality and unlimited expansion possibilities, and it costs less!

"unlimited expansion possibilities" into DSLR?, do not get me wrong I'd take any camera brand that ticks my boxes, somehow I do not feel canon wants EOS M to be serious contender to other ~enthusiast compact cameras

halfway, olypan, bluevelvet, you have added nothing to the discussion and so I won't respond to your comments.DT200: They aren't the same size, but they are pretty damn close:http://camerasize.com/compact/#491.30,351.349,ha,tFor practical purposes, it's essentially the same. Too bulky to fit comfortably in a jeans pocket, but easily fits in a jacket pocket.Marty: This is a terrible argument. And it's funny because I see a lot of Canon fans making arguments like this all the time. I suppose you also think that Transformers: Dark of the moon is one of the greatest films of all time?Shadow:Flash: Personally, I'd rather have the hotshoe, but I'm probably in the minority on that. EVF: neither does the EM1.....Autofocus: I'll give you that one. But personally I find it to be more than adequate with the firmware update. inorog: who cares what canon wants? Look at the camera itself and make your decision.At launch, the M was a mess. With new firmware and price, it is a bargain.

The GM1 is significantly smaller than the EOS M. From the top there's not too much in it, but the EOS is much taller. It is also 1.5 times the weight of the GM1. And when you say better sensor, better screen, better built, providing better image quality and unlimited expansion possibilities - I'm not sure any of those are correct.

Plus many other quirky, less known cameras. High-quality compacts thrived in the film era, though they wouldn’t all be considered compact by today’s incredibly small digital standards. There were also several relatively compact, high-end rangefinder systems towards the end of the film era, e.g. Contax G, Hexar RF, Cosina Voigtländer Bessa, Leica M, etc.

In those days great ideas were more likely to get manufactured, often by smaller companies. Now, with digital, only giants can compete – and giants are traditionally conservative and Japanese, so endless iteration is the name of the game. In this context, the GM1 is wildly innovative, for which I’m thankful.

However, to be comparable, you ought to look at the Italian half-frame "Ducati Sogno" rangefinder. It's a little bigger, but it's a true system camera, with interchangeable lenses and a zillion accessories.

Insightful comments, Allison.The reasons you list are exactly the same reasons why I intend to buy this camera: I want it to come with me wherever I go, almost as an invisible companion. As much as I love my "bigger" camera, I wanna complement it with something small and portable for all those moments when you are not consciously out shooting. Photographic eyes never rest!

I like the size and idea of carrying a camera wherever you go but isn't what the smart phone is for? The IQ coming out of the iPhones and Android phones are pretty amazing and is ready to be shared instantly unlike the GM1.

Be honest, Allison, it's the look of the GM1 you couldn't withstand; that's why it's your Gear of the Year! This tiny thing is like a gem that wakes desire, isn't it?

The GM1 is the beauty queen of the compacts - and yet it allows interchangeable lenses. These technical features it houses are impressive indeed, but will it keep what it promises? Will this small camera prove fiddly when it comes to shooting? Is it prone to shake because it's a lightweight? Many customers will likely be happy with a GM1 as a point and shoot only. But Panasonic should not ignore the needs of serious photographers and therefore improve the camera if necessary. An optional (silver?) EVF would be nice, too.

For "serious shooters".... Panasonic has the GX7. Complete with a very nice tiltable EVF build right in.

But I think the GM1 is also a serious camera, because it really is possible to take great photos without any sort of EVF or OVF.

Panasonic has filled a niche nicely with the GM1. This is an ideal camera for some folks, and an ideal second camera for others. It will take up very little room in a camera bag alongside a DSLR, and become a great option when you don't feel like taking your D800E to a party and being the camera geek.

"Be honest, Allison, it's the look of the GM1 you couldn't withstand; that's why it's your Gear of the Year! This tiny thing is like a gem that wakes desire, isn't it? [...] The GM1 is the beauty queen of the compacts - and yet it allows interchangeable lenses. [...] But Panasonic should not ignore the needs of serious photographers ..."===================================

Having spent my career at a large, urban university, I've learned to HATE, LOATHE & DESPISE any kind of admonition about "political correctness." But in this case, were I Allison, I suspect I'd find your comments to be both sexist and condescending. I've no doubt that all of the DPR writers are more than a little jaded, having as they do to read the never-ending drivel posted by so many photo "enthusiasts" (myself included), but even so, how would you like to "hang it out there a little," expressing something about your personal preferences, only to have to read a response such as yours?

millardmt: Your kind of reaction on my comments is a little weird, in my view!

The GM1 has not yet been reviewed, the tiny zoom either. What makes Allison prefer this camera as her Gear of the Year, anyway? 'It fits easily in my purse', she writes, 'it fits into my life!. She has found a companion to take pictures with 'on an everyday basis'. I strongly support such personal and practical view!There's still a question: Why not a RX100 II or a E-PM2 or ..? I suspect, Allison stands for many of us (incl. me) who are attracted by the wonderful appearance of this new camera. There's nothing wrong with it. Panasonic is successfully changing the scene with a GM1 that turns out to be a wooing little thing indeed.

Allison is not selling her DSLR and stepping over to the Panasonic system; she keeps her DSLR. Her decision for the GM1 as a second camera is not suitable for anyone. More information and a camera review might help others to make a decision. That's what DPReview is for, isn't it?

I find it very interesting that so many people now say they need to buy two camera systems, one for "serious" shooting and one for casual shooting as though you could split the two.

But my real question is whether this is a genuine need or something that we've been coaxed into believing by the camera industry. And why? Isn't one system enough? Presuming you're not a full-time professional, what is the unfulfilled psychological need we're addressing by owning two camera systems rather than one? I love new gear, and love that we have so many choices, but this seems excessive.

Welcome to the world of materialism. It started after WW2 and do not seem to end soon.

Some say it is enriching our lives while others think it is destroying life in the long term. Look at all the wastage and how it is fuelling our greed for more. Life on earth will eventially pay for it. Climate change and all the pollution is real.

Do you just have one pair of shoes? (Okay, maybe you do. But a lot of us do have different pairs of shoes for different occasions.)

I really don't think there's anything wrong with having different cameras for different applications or different scenarios. For example, if you're just going around town, do you really want to lug around a big DSLR? What's wrong with having a lighter, more compact alternative?

And frankly, I started realizing this "need" years ago. But it's only fairly recently that camera manufacturers have finally introduced products that fit the need. So, no, I don't think it's a case of the camera industry coaxing us into believing we need these cameras. I think it's the other way around: the camera industry finally listening to consumers, rather than flooding the market with more me-too DSLRs (or more tiny-sensored P&S cameras) and shoving those cameras down our throats.

Simply put, if I'm making the theoretical leap to saying I "need" any camera at all, then yes, there is a "need", in my use, for a second camera.

My SLR system gives me every option imaginable, and is adaptable, customizable, and as a system, I can upgrade it to keep current with modern technological improvements. It's anything and everything I need it to be as far as photographic capabilities.

The one thing I can't do with it is put it in a pocket. Taking my system with me requires planning and certain necessities to accommodate it. This simple drawback of size is what splits my photography needs, not serious/casual. It's the difference between planning to make photography the main purpose, and having a capable camera available.

That's where an advanced compact or light system comes in for many people...it's filling a need just like a specialty lens.

You wouldn't say "Why get a macro lens? The camera industry is telling you you need it." Same goes for a small camera.

One day perhaps the m43 sensor will be better than the best APS-C sensors today. That day, is not today. I can not abide the water color smeary noise at 1:1, at real world lighting (including shadows in any contrasting light) high IOS's. I'd say the goal is zero noise; at ISO 3200. This camera is way over priced. It's fine lenses are also way overpriced, comparatively (think 35mm Nikkor AF-S). I'm all for better carry sizes(and pocket camera progression); but it's just not worth it, now.

Well, ask yourself how often you view a photo "at 1:1" in the real world? Real photos are not viewed at 1:1. In fact, the best photos in the world, the most iconic ones, the great ones, aren't going to look very good "at 1:1" either, especially the ones that were shot on film! So I really think people should just get away from obsessive pixel peeping and get back to what real photography is about: being there, with a camera, to capture a moment. Real photography isn't about sitting in front of a computer anally pixel peeping images "at 1:1". Well, ok, maybe that's what photography is to *you*. But I think a lot of people are finally getting past that distorted notion of photography.

I think pixel peeping at 1:1 was very valuable in the earlier days of digital cameras. But these days, that obsessive practice has diminishing returns, and is less of an indicator of how an image will look when viewed normally than ever before.

I've not used an APS-C sensor that I can say is definitively better than the newer m43 models. I have an X100s and an E-M5 and don't notice any discernible difference in IQ below ISO 3200 between them.

@T3. Well, not sure. Pixel peeping or at least large decent crops will be more needed now the screen resolutions are (finally) improving. Apple started the move with the iMac 27. Windows hardware makers were slow to follow but now all have such a screen in their catalogue and the prices are falling. In 5 years or so, 4K TV (3840x2160) might well also get mainstream. To cater for this type of crop, 24 Megapixel cams won't be a luxury.

So what will the smartphone images look like on such devices? Like the tiny black pix of my grandparents whose face I can't even see properly with a magnifying glass.I wouldn't mind using a smartphone to take an unsignificant pic on the spur of the moment. But I certainly would not for travel in areas where I might never return again. And I do hope young parents shoot their kids at different age with decent gear for their memory books.

The best 4/3 sensor will never be better than the best APS-C sensor since both use the same technology, and there are advantages that come with a larger sensor.

The real question isn't "which is better" but "which ones are good enough for your needs?"

Even though the APS-C sensor does better when bench tested, for all practical purposes the 4/3 sensor is now good enough for the vast majority of users. And in time.... the 1" sensor will probably be good enough too.

the 4/3 can never be better, he is just a cropped part of the apsc-sensor, like the 16 mpix Oly sensor is just a fraction of the 24 mpix sensor of Sony, same pixel pitch and density, thus same picture quality with same lens and timing. What differs is DOF, the smaller a sensor gets, the wider the depth of field gets, and 4/3 has deeper field depth than APSC or FF. At FF you get shallower DOF, but on the end, each of those sensors has his advantages. In tourism use, where you want more sharpness all over, a 4/3 is better to be used than a FF. Best is to have cameras with different sensor sizes, with that you can do all, sharpness all over, or shallow dof and huge bokeh. At decent sizes, like 3x4 inches print, you won't see the picture quality difference, but you'll see the DOF, and that is all what makes the difference in some way. It is not important what you have, what is important is what you do with it, and that use determines your choice.

For some people, weight might matter as much as size depending on how you are carrying it. For example, Allison Johnson keeps the camera in her purse. I carry my compact camera on a waistpack for running/hiking outdoors, which is how my camera is carried almost 100% of the time. The pockets in my running shorts are useless for any camera, so as long as I have a good way to secure it on/in a waist pack, weight matters more. The GM1 with the compact zoom is 274g, which similar to and actually slightly less than Sony RX-100 II (281 g).

No it won't fit comfortably in a jeans pocket. (I have actually walked around with the slightly larger EOS M in my jeans. It fit, but I looked kind of stupid.) But it fits a little bit better than its peers in lots of places. Jacket pockets, purses, side pockets of bags, glove compartments...

Allison writes about the experience of having a high-quality camera with you at all times, but not being conscious of it at all, which is something I can attest to. You are not photo conscious at all times because you don’t have the weight or size to remind you. Having the GM1 in my work bag for the past few days, I have forgotten it is actually there, but then I think: I actually have a camera with an m43 sensor in my bag if I want to take great photos on a similar level to my EM-5 (which is at home), even as wide as 24mm eq., which, to me, is what this camera is all about.

Some reviewer mentioned the Sony RX1 is a great camera to take out on a family holiday to take highest quality snaps of your trip without the burden of a DSLR. I think the GM1 is similar to the RX1 but shrunken to an even smaller scale for those who want even more portability and be even less conspicuous when taking shots. (with faster AF too). People being shot really think you are using a standard P&S cam.

The GM1 with its tiny size would be a great backup camera for the Oly OMD-EM1. This will be the best travel photographer combo. Use the EM1 for those situation when one require reasonable fast tracking focus, walking in the rain or snow and when an EVF is essential. Use the GM1 when going to a pub or restaurant in the evening or to an art gallery where cameras are usually ban.

One would be able to get both for about the same price of the Sony RX1.

Looks like a great camera for those of us who don't want to lug around a DSLR everywhere, but still want the flexibility of a decent sized sensor and some lens options/interchangeability. There's definitely a time and place for a DSLR, but come on people, you don't need to take your DSLR everywhere. These days, seeing someone lug a DSLR into a restaurant or at a party just looks silly and dorky, especially when there are good alternatives now available.

Make no mistake, the GM1 is small. For hilarity, go to camerasize.com and compare against a Nikon D4. O_o

More to the point though, its functionally the same size as a Pentax Q7 .. essentially erasing the desirability of the latter. Once the price settles down to the $400 range, as it surely will, the relevancy of the Nikon V2 and Sony RX100ii also fall into question.

1. I thought with Nikon 1 still relevant, especially who built their Nikon DSLR system. They can use Nikon tele-lenses for creating extra long focal length, but for most first buyer will not interesting.2. This camera is not really pocketable compared with Sony RX100II. They need more compact n dedicated lenses for this Lumix GM series.

@ Richards, It is true the body is smaller, but when you attached its lens on it become bigger (volumetric).Pls, refer this size comparison, http://www.photographyblog.com/news/panasonic_gm1_v_sony_rx100/

BTW,This camera is worth to be included in the DPReview gear of the year.

"compare to the D4" :: !!! Yes, I did that, too --and it's like the yacht & a dingy towed by it! As others note, though, re overall size, one mustn't ignore the lenses : some primes keep an overall small size but at the expense of FL variety of course (vs. RX100). But, for those who have invested in M4/3 gear, this tiny body can be a nice complement.

Thanks, Allison. I enjoyed the testimonial/narrative approach to explainating your fondness of this camera. Cameras, as we all should be reminded of, are tools within a context; their values are not completely measured in hairsplitting over high ISO image quality, frames shot per second, and flash sync speeds.

I setup the camerasize.com webpage with the GM1 and Sony Nex-3n on it and asked my wife which one she would like. She indicated the GM1 and said, "of coarse that one, as it has that old camera look". I then told her the GM1 is US $750 and the other is US $450. She then said the looks weren't $300 more important. I asked her about size and she replied she is happy with the 5n with the Sony 16-50mm she has now, and the little bit smaller camera isn't really enough smaller to interest her.

I have to admit I like the looks of the GM1, but even with my small hands, really small for a guy, I find the 5n too small and have to have a half case on it to have it be somewhat comfortable for me. My wife likes it without the case, of coarse. I also looked to find photos of the 3n with a half case on it, and that look is almost as attractive as the GM1 to me.

Crazy, after all that, I still would like to buy my wife the GM1. I might not be stylish, but my wife is still pretty hip and happening.

Admittedly I have not shot extensively with the GM1 like Allison has, but my first reaction upon seeing and holding it for the first time was, "Really? They made it that small?!"

Sizing it up on camerasize.com is one thing; holding it in your hands is something completely else. It may be too small for "serious" photo work or, as Allison puts it, "Going Shooting", but my sore shoulder wins out over my cramped hands when walking around with non-serious photography.

And then when you factor in that you're not sacrificing sensor size (didn't say image quality, as I haven't scrutinized the photos) it's really amazing what they've done.

I can't really tell the difference between the 274g / 0.6 pounds of the GM1, (I actually used just the 5n without a lens mounted, 269g), on my shoulder and 385g / 0.8 pounds, (the 3n and 5n with the 16-50mm weigh the same) on my shoulder. I can't really tell the difference all the way up to 461g / 1 pound of a Nex-6 with the 16-50mm. I can kind of tell the difference with the 960g / 2.1 pound of my weather sealed DSLR with weather sealed kit lens mounted. I'm not however, about to complain about the DSLR being heavy when my 5 foot 2 inch, 100 pound, wife carries around a 4.5 pound / 2041g purse everywhere she goes. Four ounces in weight savings in her purse might mean something to her though.

The statue is part of the Magic Gardens in Philadelphia. I'm not sure how you would describe the place, art, junk, madness, OCD, vision, ugly, beautiful, obscene, sacrilegious, mystical, ... You definitely step into the mind of someone else when you visit and you aren't walking on solid ground. Like a physical dream maybe.

Nice! Going Shooting, capital G capital S. Yup, the E-M5 is round my neck and the backpack is full of lenses and I've got my Goretex on and yup, I'm Goin' Shootin'. Now when I'm not Going Shooting, I'll be in my suit and tie mainly, and I really really want to have something unobtrusive but good in my jacket pocket. Darn it, I don't think I have what it takes to pop a Cath Kidson handbag on my arm...

I will pass the suit and tie part, because we seem to be the only ones in this forum acknowledging dress code as an issue (when I was 25 I did not mind having a drink at the Closerie des Lilas in tweeds, a tie, and a bag full of gear on the table, but those days are over). But you must be more fit than I am! There is no way I can carry a backpack full of lenses on the trail (just a bottle of water, a snack, a light sweater, an 8" tablet, a couple of cigars, keys, wallet, smartphone, ipod, and a pocketable camera - and I still prefer to distribute the weight in the pockets of my Barbour and my cargo pants).

It’s not the electronic first-curtain but the mechanical second-curtain that limits the GM1’s flash-synch speed.

The GM1’s second curtain is driven by a stepper motor, which means the curtain moves far slower than in a conventional spring-driven shutter (I’m mildly surprised it’s feasible at all to drive a shutter curtain with a stepper motor). That limits the fastest mechanical shutter speed to 1/500 s and the flash synch to 1/50 s.

On the plus side, by eliminating the mechanical first-curtain and the clockwork of a conventional shutter, the GM1’s shutter is truly tiny (about 1/5th the size of the GF5 shutter assembly!), allowing the camera to be as small as it is – particularly its low height.

Hi Andy: yes, I did read the last paragraph. It even starts off by saying that "we don't want to be too negative". But I do acknowledge the positive comments about the camera being "cute" and a "feat of engineering". To me, the overall message was that the camera may be cute and a feat of engineering, but to what end? The "positive" points served as a foil to highlight the negatives, I thought.

I'm somewhat agnostic towards the GM1, but I just thought the "gear of the year" recommendation seemed much at odds with what was written in the "first impression", that's all. Thanks.

Yes, I've seen it. The thing is, in most of his scenarios, a good smartphone would have performed just as good. That's how good some smartphone cams have gotten. But if you get out of the comfort zone more often than Blunty, then both Pentax Q and smartphones would start showing IQ degradation sooner. (Or later, if you would first hit the subjects unsuited for the e-shutter of the GM1.)

I would like to see more weatherproofed MILC's. I mean, "high quality, take everywhere cameras" they say - that is, unless it's cold or it's rainy!

I'm pretty sure Olympus has a couple of weatherproofed MILC's, but I think none of the lenses are. And Nikon has one. Correct me if I'm wrong!

Isn't environmental sealing a fairly easy feature to add to a camera? All those little rugged compact cameras on the market right now might be tough, but every last one of them lacks the photographic power of a camera like this little camera.

I think environmental sealing would appeal to a lot of people. A tough little camera that's a real photographic tool, not a point-and-shoot.

This is the exact article I was looking for. Since you've had the sony RX100II, can I ask you a question on portability?

I'm looking for a replacement for my Canon S90, and initially, I wanted a Sony RX100II.... But then this camera came out..

Just a few questions:

What is the shot-to-shot time of this camera? The RX100II is very fast, .4 seconds between pics, so you can take two pics in one second if necessary without turning on its continuous mode. Can this camera meet or beat that time?

Is there a wifi option to transfer files to my smart phone?

Now, with the 12-32mm or 20mm, will this fit in a hoodie sweater pocket? jacket pocket? adidas sports jacket pocket? or fit into cargo shorts pockets?

If it meets or beats all of the above requests, then it would seem like a better pocket cam than the RX100II.

Haven't done a lot of formal testing yet with the GM1 as far as timings go but just in casual use it seems like the GM1 is a little faster, but the buffer needs more time to clear. I can get 3 shots very quickly, but it varies after that. The RX100 II is just a hair slower (again, in a very casual test) but lets me shoot more frames without needing to clear the buffer. The GM1 does have WiFi.

With the 12-32 or 20mm the GM1 will fit into bigger pockets like an outdoor jacket or hoodie. The RX100 II is slimmer and might fit a bit more comfortably, since either lens on the GM1 protrudes a bit more. They weigh about the same. Hope that's helpful! We're working on a full review.

Capable, versatile and cute. The RX100 is reasonably good but one cannot change lenses. A system camera is always better. If one have a GM1 with a standard micro 4/3 camera, he can make use of all the lenses, especially primes, that he has. It would be the ideal and logical choice as a backup body. One can even use it with the Lumix 100-300mm eventhough it may not be the best choice. With an adapter, one can easily shoot some photos with a Canon or Nikon super telephoto lens. Imagine having the ability to shoot with the Canon EF 600mm f/4.0L IS lens eventhough manual focus is required. With that combo, one can have a 1200mm capabilty enough for any bird photography.